What really happened in Pearl Harbor

Discussion in 'History' started by Overdose, May 6, 2004.

  1. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Oh, my.
    Churchill immediately started bombing civilians in Germany.

    I suppose there is some new definition of the word "immediately" I haven't previously been aware of.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Sorry too. Oh, he did?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Rubbish.
    France invaded Germany WELL South of Holland.

    No he didn't.

    No he didn't.

    No he didn't.

    Your factual grasp of history is grossly deficient.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Too much Kool Aid
     
  8. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Well, actually Dwyddyr, he may have.
    In 1940, just prior to the Dunkirk evacuation. The corridor along which the BEF and some French were able to escape was held open longer than it should have been able to, and that was in no small way attributable to a rather odd order to stop the advance in order to "resupply".

    It is known he still believed there was a chance for peace with Britain even after the battle for France had ended, and would have preferred such an option rather than embark upon an invasion of the Islands.
    If for no other reason, a ceasefire with Britain would have had several strategic advantages.
    The extreme losses suffered in the Battle of Britain would not have occurred and the extra resources made available, instead, for the assault on Russia.
    It is for no small reason that there are those who consider the Dunkirk evacuation one of the most pivotal points in the entire war.

    Whether or not the order was a "gesture", though, is at this point pure speculation, as is the common belief that it was Hitler himself who ordered the advance to pause.
     
  9. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Thanks Marquis. At least now its clear am not making stuff. There a LOAD of history that is hidden, and a LOAD which is made up. People need to dig it up.
     
  10. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    You're not making stuff up, entirely, but don't go thinking I'm buying into your Cabal.

    There are more often than not very pragmatic and reasonable explanations for what may appear to be the result of a conspiracy.
    We have a tendency to believe that our leaders are in some way superior to ourselves... to be more intelligent, perhaps, or to be at least better informed. Better advised.
    But those advisors are human too. Not shadowy figures with power beyond measure.

    There are sound strategic reasons for Hitler not to want to be in a war with Britain, which should be evident even to the most casual of students. When he found himself in the middle of one, there are also sound reasons to believe he'd do almost anything to end it, short of surrender.

    There is theory which speculates that Chamberlain was ill-judged by history. He is seen sometimes as a weak man, a man of peace for whom war was something to be avoided at all costs.
    When one considers the state of the British military in 1938 and 1939, however, it becomes apparent that he may have been a very cool customer with a head for the long game. It should be remembered that in the early stages of the battle for France, Britain was fighting an air war with biplanes. The British military was far behind its counterparts, other than at sea, and had almost two decades of neglect to make up for. Chamberlain's acquiescence to Hitler's aggression may have been little more than a delaying tactic, to buy time for a war he suspected was to come. And, given the eventual outcome, was absolutely invaluable.

    Churchill was the man for the moment.
    Prior to the war, he had been vociferous in warning of probable German aggression. He was shouted down by the majority of the British government. It was not his time - he may have led Britain into a conflict it was not prepared for, and one it could not win unless given that time to prepare.
    When the conflict began, and Britain more ready, then he was the man to lead them. Thus Chamberlain fades, perhaps unfairly. into ignobility and Churchill remains standing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  11. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Conspiracy of course is a "dirty" word. And I do not buy everything of "conspiracy" that I am told, or read. But am not naive that men do conspire, and have conspired against each other throughout history. Families conspire against a member of family, even to murder him. Husband conspire to kill his wife. Wife conspire to kill a husband. Clan members conspire against other clan members. Races conspire against other races. So, conspiracy and man have been together for so long, that its foolhardy to dismiss "Conspiracy Theory of History" aka, The Devil Theory of History. So, is there a conspiracy? some claim no. Others claims that the history of human tragedy revolves around "human folly" "accidents" "freaks of nature" etc. But conspiracy? hardly. But then, if there was, do you not think that those who may be conspiring would want the conspiracy theory to be dismissed? It reminds me of Bre-rabbit, the fox, the bush and the fire story. "Please please Mr. Fox, do not throw me into the Bush! Throw me into the FIRE!" Conspiracy theory? duh!
     
  12. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    You need to see the secret hand behind conflicts. "Military Industrial Complexes" , together with other "Multinational Corporations" have evolved a symbiotic relationship with International Private Central Bankers. This symbiotic relationship arises out of their need to influence world governments policies for profit. International Private Central Bankers need the Governments to borrow their loans, so that they can profit on the interest, as they continue tying them in an unplayable debt. On the other hand, Military Industrial Complex, together with other Multinational Corporations need the Governments to buy its armaments and other manufactured military supplies and services to make profits. In this set up, World Peace becomes anathema for the bankers and Multinational Corporations. Peace, means losses to manufacturers of armaments, and its accompanying military supply by Multinational Corporations . Thats's why there is perpetual Wars and conflicts. If there is peace, how will these corporation make profit?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Exactly.
    The "halt order" was to allow regrouping (Guderian had, for example, VASTLY exceeded his orders - and planned speed of advance - and Germany feared an attack from French forces to the South of Dunkerque).
    And Hitler certainly didn't "order his commanders to allow their retreat" - Goering pushed to be allowed to let the Luftwaffe (rather than the Heer) deliver the coup de grace: there was no intention of "allowing a retreat".

    Whut?
    Hurricanes, Battles and Blenheims.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Yeah right.
    You DID check the link, didn't you?
    The Saar Offensive wasn't through Holland.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,343
    I think you mean "bogey". Boggy just means wet and muddy, like a bog. I realise English may not be your first language. If you think Hitler was not anti-semitic, why do you think the Nazis put so much effort into exterminating millions of Jews during the war? Or are you, shall we say, agnostic on that issue?
     
  16. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    You don't know that. I would tend to agree with you, but it is not a fact. There are several differing accounts.

    And Gladiators. Among the first squadrons to be sent over, in order to preserve the more modern aircraft. They did rather well, considering.
    Gladiators were also used during the Battle of Malta and in the early stages of the war in North Africa. Biplanes.
    Battles were obsolete flying coffins. Blenheims not much more.
    The Spitfires were nowhere to be seen during the early stages, and Hurricanes were the only truly modern planes on the field for the British. Those weren't an even match for a 109 either, and there weren't as many squadrons of them in France as you've been led to believe. The British deliberately held back their most modern aircraft once it became clear there was to be no victory in France.

    The British needed time to reequip and were nowhere near the readiness of the French or Germans in 1939 at the beginning of the Battle for France.
    That's the point.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Although Hitler ratified the order it originated from von Rundstedt.
    And there's this: Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket.

    Gladiators were kept purely as local airfield defence, except for one recce flight.
    Not quite the same as having them in front line squadrons.

    Funny historical perceptions of the Battle have arisen - they had more or less the same specification as the much vaunted Il-2 Sturmovik (apart from being significantly heavier).
    It was their use that gave the reputation. (And it was a Battle that got the RAF's first air-air kill).
     
  18. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Yeah there, you are right.
     
  19. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Got that from a quick Wikipedia search, did you? Almost the very first link on the search page.
    So apparently there was an order German forces completely failed to carry out, despite having taken almost the entirety of northern France in just a few weeks, and having such a disregard for the enemy that captured French soldiers were sometimes simply divested of their weapons and told to go home.
    This is the German army which you claim got the jitters at the last moment.
    It is certainly possible. It is also somewhat at odds with events during the weeks before.

    What about the speech of 19 July 1940?
    Hitler's comment that he had "sportingly" allowed the British to escape through Dunkirk (maybe propaganda, maybe not)?
    Rudolph Hess?

    I'm telling you that there is a possibility, which cannot be discounted, that Hitler did not want to "annihilate" the British at Dunkirk because he still wanted peace with a nation he did not view as being a natural enemy.
    Events before, during and after the Battle for France bear that out.

    You're trying to argue that there was no possibility of this at all.
    You're not doing very well, I'm afraid.

    Which completely ignores the fact that the airfields were prime targets to the point where they were largely abandoned and the British operating from grassed fields instead, and the Gladiators were almost constantly in action. That they were among the very first aircraft sent over by Brtain, and that they were far inferior to German forces in technical terms. So was the Fairy Battle, in spite of your attempts to claim otherwise.
    That they were still in service because the British were not ready.
    Is any of this... sinking in, at all?

    I'm not going to get bogged down in minutiae with you any longer.
    You're attempting to divert from the original point, which was, to whit, that the British were less prepared for the war than the Germans (and the French, to a lesser extent).

    That Chamberlain may be underrated if his "appeasement" tactics, so often derided, were actually attempts to buy time for Britain because he knew that. Along with the rest of the British government, who were mostly in favour of asking Churchill to shut the hell up, prior to the actual conflict itself.

    That Churchill, famous symbol of dogged British determination that he now is, may actually have come very close to seeing his nation utterly destroyed.

    Churchill and Hitler were not dissimilar in personality; two men who were gifted with the ability to sway public opinion via rhetoric. The war between Germany and Britain had every chance of being settled before the Battle of Britain. Peace was always an option, without even the ignominy of unconditional surrender. Significant elements of the British population had more sympathy for the Germans than they did for the French; the two had been traditional enemies for centuries. Many British did not really understand why they were at war with Germany at all. What Germany was actually up to was not common knowledge at this point; to most British, Hitler was just some guy on the mainland who'd managed to drag Germany out of the economic doldrums.

    Hess apparently believed it entirely. It is not insignificant that Hess was not treated as an ambassador, but rather hurriedly swept away and gagged. There were many who would have listened to what he had to say, and thus Hess was not given any opportunity to say it.

    Churchill changed all of that with a few well-timed speeches. History does not view Churchill as being a pugnacious man who may have been almost single-handedly responsible for the continuation of hostilities between Germany and Britain, and yet he may have been exactly that.
    Lucky for the British it all worked out in the end, wasn't it?

    One might go so far as to say that a significant reason for the conflict continuing beyond the Battle for France, the subsequent retaliatory bombings of London and Berlin, all of it, was the result of little more than two very eloquent and powerful men engaged in a common bar fight, and dragging everyone else along with them.

    Bigfoot is saying all of this as well, in his own way. He does have a tendency to lose everyone with talk of a Cabal, but that does not detract from his point that history is rather... malleable.

    You have yet to present anything even remotely resembling an argument to counter that.

    Go away now.
     
  20. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    George Orwell stated; “ He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” You need to understand that history can be contrived to fit an agenda. People should not dismiss conspiracy just because it sounds ridiculous If its possible that all the history that you have been taught, and which you believe is true history, is actually contrived history, and if these people control much of what you call Major mainstream media, it means they control the present.

    As The Marquis has mentioned, there was the case of Rudolf Hess. A very curious case. But when you claims conspiracy, its like a sheep which is trying to convince other sheep that the sheep-dog and the Shepard are conspiring. Duh!
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,343
    I know this may be going off at a tangent, but I'm intrigued by your worldview. Do you think the role of these organisations persists in any of the great existential debates we have nowadays, such as climate change and so forth?
     
  22. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282

    Let me quote you the proverbs: “The simpleton believes what he is told,, the man of discretion watches how he treads” Proverbs 14”15

    What does this mean? Great Solomon knew almost 3000 years ago, that there are men who are gullible and easily deceived and there are men of discretion who are careful with what they accept as true. So, one have to craft his own reality based on what he has investigated and confirmed as true, and not necessarily the government. Especially government statement. Do I think the role of these organizations persists in any of the great existential debates we have nowadays, such as climate change and so forth? I cannot rule that out. What is of course true is that most of the people who work for these organizations have no clue that they are part of most likely a global scam. They are very learned, and very intelligent. But that, is their Achilles Heel. For most of what the institutions of learning teach, is what is decided by the top guys. I used to be a fun of the likes of Arvin Toffler John Naisbitt and Milton Friedman, but over the years, I kind of had a feeling that I am being led the "garden path". So, these days, am I an inveterate skeptic even of what I now support as probably true.

    "Climate Change? Population explosion? give me a break! The other day, they were telling us that dinosaur fart changed the climate that brought their extinction. Hm, Does human activity have an effect on nature? absolutely. Can human beings bring climate change that would cause global catastrophe? It depends. But I have been taught by the French to ask before I embrace any claim. Cui Bono?
     
  23. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282

Share This Page